By the end of Summer, Intel's Conroe lineup will have ballooned from a meager five processors at launch to at least different 14 models. The once simple model number system is now well on its way to being the complicated mess that plagued the P4's system before it.

First it was the introduction of the value E4xxx series, then the larger cache Exx20 series, followed by the even cheaper E2xxx CPUs and now the new 1333MHz FSB processors.

The new 1333MHz FSB CPUs will end in the number 50 (e.g. E6750), with the exception of the E6540 which is also a 1333MHz CPU. Although Intel isn't announcing pricing at this point, we don't expect the new 1333MHz FSB CPUs to cost any more than their predecessors; in other words, we expect the E6750 to carry the same price tag as the E6700 does. We've included the post July 22nd price cuts for the unreleased Intel processors in the table below (note that current processors will fall in price as well, although the table reflects present day pricing for currently available CPUs), as well as pricing for chips to be released in Q4:

 CPU Clock Speed FSB L2 Cache Availability Pricing
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 1066 4MB Now $999
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.00GHz 1333 4MB Q3 $266
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 1333 4MB Q3 $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 1066 4MB Now $316
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066 4MB Now $224
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 1333 4MB Q3 $163
Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 2.33GHz 1333 4MB Q3 $163
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 2.13GHz 1066 4MB Now $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 1066 2MB Now $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320 1.86GHz 1066 4MB Now $163
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 1066 2MB Now $163
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 2.40GHz 800 2MB Q4 $133
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20GHz 800 2MB Q3 $133
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 2.00GHz 800 2MB Now $133
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 1.80GHz 800 2MB Now $113
Intel Pentium E2180 2.00GHz 800 1MB Q4 $84
Intel Pentium E2160 1.80GHz 800 1MB Now $84
Intel Pentium E2140 1.60GHz 800 1MB Now $74

Intel sent out samples of its Core 2 Duo E6750 ahead of their scheduled availability as a preview (and probably to jab at its competitor a bit), so the processor we're previewing won't be available for a little while. Intel's internal roadmaps show Q3 as the timeframe to expect its 1333MHz FSB CPUs, but Intel's official statement is that these CPUs will be available "later this summer."


Keep in mind that AMD's pricing is keeping the company's lineup quite competitive with Intel below $300. You can buy all Socket-AM2 AMD processors for less than $300, resulting in great price/performance from the guys in green.

 CPU Clock Speed L2 Cache Price
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz 1MBx2 $241
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.8GHz 1MBx2 $188
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ 2.6GHz 1MBx2 $178
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz 512KBx2 $167
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.5GHz 512KBx2 $136
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 512KBx2 $121
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 2.1GHz 512KBx2 $104
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz 512KBx2 $83
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 1.9GHz 512KBx2 $73

Note that AMD will respond with its own set of price cuts in late July to keep the landscape competitive after Intel's cost cutting measures.

Tell it To Me Straight Anand: Is it Any faster?
POST A COMMENT

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    Hmm that link didn't work out, lemme try again:

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...
    Reply
  • ncage - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    Ummm everyone wants a new cpu tested for their specific circumstance. Testing the encoding performance you talk of would be a very big task in itself. Think of all the possibilites that could be tested with all the different encoders and even a specific version of an encoder could make a big difference (how parallel the code is in that version). It would be an impossible task for them to make everyone happy. I think anandtech does exactly what they need to do. They test a variety of applications and give you a sense for "General" performance of the cpu. If you look at any cpu review people will say...why didn't you do this test why didn't you do that test. I would just be happy with what you get.

    Ncage
    Reply
  • 7oby - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    quote:

    even a specific version of an encoder could make a big difference (how parallel the code is in that version). It would be an impossible task for them to make everyone happy.


    definitely, however as a starting point, take these:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/26/the_gigaher...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/26/the_gigaher...
    http://hardware.thgweb.de/2007/04/09/intel_core_2_...">http://hardware.thgweb.de/2007/04/09/in...reme_qx6...
    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html">http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
    [sorry, all more or less from the same site]

    Depending on their degree of parallelizm the de-/encoder applications take different advantages of multi cores. Some do not yet scale beyond dual cores. Still a quad core can make perfectly sense:

    . even if your particular video encoder can benefit only from two cores, then just throw two videos simultaneously at the quad core. It will scale ;-)
    . while encoding there are still resources left for other tasks you might want to do while encoding
    . its very likely that future versions of current encoding codecs will scale better with multi cores as soon as those processors become more mainstream and the demand for this requirement raises. Besides - look just as an illustrating example at OpenMP: It may be hard at the beginning to parallize your application, but going from 2 way to 4 way is not that hard anymore. In the simple case of OpenMP you get it for free. Image and video processing scales particularly good with # of processors: you either partition the image into blocks or distribute the different encoding stages.

    7oby
    Reply
  • TA152H - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    Ummmm, I couldn't care less how well it performs on a quad-core, since I have absolutely no intention of buying one in the near future. Most people here will do fine with a dual-core, and the market share for quad cores is very low by comparison. Thus, he picked something that makes sense since it will target more people. Reply
  • TA152H - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    First of all, why use DDR2 on a 1333 FSB processor? Wouldn't it have been more interesting to show these processors running on DDR3 running at 1333 MHz, instead of DDR2-800 ? It looks like the memory was run at only 800 MHz in both cases, so it's not at all surprising the results weren't enormous, actually it's pretty surprising that the results were as much better than they are. If you ran them each with appropriate memory, you'd probably see the reason for moving to 1333 FSB a lot more clearly. It surely wasn't to run memory at 800 MHz with it.

    I'm not criticizing doing a DDR2 800 MHz review because it does show something, but making it the only tests misses the point. It's more interesting academically, so should be included, but in terms of real world use, it's not very revealing. I suspect most people wanting these processors will not want to shackle it with DDR2-800 MHz memory. And before cost is brought up, keep in mind the processor will not be out for a few months, and the cost of DDR3 right now is not what it will cost then. Clearly it should fall closer to DDR2 as time goes along, so I think it's worth testing to see the true performance increase of the platform.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    I don't see why, as Dual Channel DDR2-800 would provide enough bandwidth to feed a theoretical FSB1600 processor let alone FSB1333. I don't see the point in having memory in a 2:1 ratio with the FSB as DDR3-1333 would be providing exactly 2x the memory bandwidth the processor can take advantage of.

    As well this processor is coming out in a single month, not a few months, so I wouldn't at all expect DDR3 prices to drop all that much.

    I expect DDR3 to provide some performance benefits, but nothing earth shattering compared to the DDR2 as your providing more memory bandwidth then the FSB can handle.

    Reply
  • mostlyprudent - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    I seem to recall an article here on Anandtech.com about 6-8 months ago that demonstrated a "noticable" performance improvement going from DDR2-667 to DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Duo line of processors. I also wonder if we would see a noticable performance improvement on native 1333 FSB CPU running faster DDR2 or DDR3. Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/memory/ddr2/20...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/memory/ddr2/20...

    I don't see much of a noticable improvement here on Core 2, Core just hasn't shown much signs if any of being dramatically affected by memory speed.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link

    Are you serious?

    Did you read the initial article they wrote on the P35? Then the follow up which showed how much of it was because of the increase in the memory speed. Just about every article on DDR3 shows that it needs higher clock speeds to show real performance. Yet, it wouldn't make any difference here? That makes no sense at all. Besides, if you're getting an improvement by just increasing the FSB and not the memory, that's very interesting indeed. With increased memory speed, you're going to see a pronounced improvement. I'm still surprised there's as much a difference as there was with the same exact memory running at the same speed. Faster DDR3 memory should blow show why Intel went to 1333. DDR2 800 won't.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - link

    I am dead serious I don't see much of a performance improvement on the whole. Anyway the results provided on the P35 Chipset cannot be used unless you isolate the variable of memory speed and chipset. So you need to compare DDR2-800 with a 1.33GHZ FSB on the P35 Chipset to DDR3-1333 with a 1.33GHZ FSB on the P35 Chipset to generate any useful data.

    Not particularly most of the benches show that DDR2-800 is about the level of DDR3-1066 due to it's added latency. DDR3-1333 would be somewhat faster but not any dramatic increase as your trying to paint.

    The reason they moved to DDR3/P35 and 1.33GHZ FSB all at the same time (relatively), was because all 3 were needed to generate a worthwhile performance improvement.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now